Richard Dawkins stumped when asked for an example of where a mutation increased the information content of a genome. Watch it for yourself.The response

The answer is down syndrome. I was hoping for an upward increase in information

I didn't understand what the evolutionists' rebuttal was, i.e., how they justified Dawkins' long pause and his apparent lack of ability to explain his position.

If Down's syndrome was his only example, he's really digging himself into a hole. The simple addition of one chromosome through a DNA copying error which results in a handicappped offspring does not constitute and increase in genetic information, but a decrease. What I'm saying is the the absolute number of total base pairs is not a measure of how much genetic information is there.

Dawkins knows the truth..
It is impossible for a beneficial random mutation to occur over and over again, many, many times in just the right spot, as to add to a previous generation random mutation that has enhanced the fitness of said animal

Dr Dawkins makes a number of incorrect statements [marked with RD Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Editor] as cited by Mr Williams to which my replies are interspersed and marked with GB.

RD: Ã¢â‚¬ËœOn September 16, 1997, Keziah Video Productions, in the persons of Gillian Brown and Geoffrey Smith, came to my house Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

GB: I was accompanied by a former geologist, Philip Hohnen, not Geoffrey Smith.

RD: Ã¢â‚¬ËœÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

GB: That question actually came at the end of the interview. At the beginning, Philip Hohnen asked several general questions on the origin of new information. These questions are recorded on tape and may be viewed, either on tape or transcripted, by anyone interested in the exact nature of the questions. Dawkins objected to the questions and stopped the recording. He claimed that questions on the origin of new information were invalid, and that nobody ever asked him such questions. I responded that the question of information was perfectly valid, and very important to the evolution-creation debate.

RD: Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions, and asked them to leave my house.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

GB: At no time did Dr Dawkins ask us to leave his house. A second camera (newly purchased, which we were testing) was inadvertently not switched off until later, so it recorded most of the ensuing conversation. This remains on record to clarify supposed Ã¢â‚¬Ëœlapses of memoryÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.

RD: Ã¢â‚¬ËœAs it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has an entire chapter (Ã¢â‚¬Å“The Genetic Book of the DeadÃ¢â‚¬Â) devoted to a much more interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up information from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the time of the interview, the book was almost finished (it is to be published in November, 1998). That chapter would have been in the forefront of my mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest that I would have evaded the question by talking about fish and amphibians.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

GB: After he asked for the camera to be switched off, Dawkins asked that his answers to the first few questions would not be used (and they have not been used). He then agreed to make a statement, but refused to take more questions from Philip.

We resumed recording, then after he finished his statement I asked for a concrete example in which an evolutionary process can be seen to have increased information on the genome. The long pause seen on the video immediately followed my question, he then asked me to switch off the camera so he could think, which I did.

After some thought he permitted the camera to be switched on again and his final answer was recorded, the answer which appears in the video, which, as can be seen, does not answer the question. Because my question was off-camera and off-mike (though clearly audible on the tape), it could not be used in the finished production. That is why the presenter was recorded later, repeating my question as I had asked it.

Your concern is that the pause was fabricated. No, the pause followed by an irrelevant answer was in response to that exact question, a question which Dr Dawkins could not answer and would have preferred not to even discuss. Ã¢â‚¬ËœLudicrousÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ perhaps, but the question was indeed evaded. If you would care to view the unedited tape you will be able to confirm my account.

RD: Ã¢â‚¬ËœIf IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I had to do was talk about Ã¢â‚¬ËœThe Genetic Book of the DeadÃ¢â‚¬â„¢. It is a chapter I am particularly pleased with. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d have welcomed the opportunity to expound it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I have kept totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about something quite different while struggling to keep my temper?Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

GB: Whatever he may have been thinking about I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know, but it is clear that he did not answer the question.

BW: Ã¢â‚¬ËœIf it had been left at that, it might merely have been evidence of professional incompetence on the part of the producer and editor of the tape Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

GB: Before making charges of Ã¢â‚¬ËœincompetenceÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, the original tape should be viewed Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ The question, asked by myself (not Geoffrey Smith) was off camera, and thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why the question was re-recorded by the narrator, the pause and the answer which follows is exactly the response from Prof. Dawkins.

The actual pause was in fact shortened from 19 seconds to 11 seconds, and DawkinsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ request to switch off the camera so that he could think was also cut out. So, there was no malicious intent whatsoever, what is seen is DawkinsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ exact response, with a shortened pause, and the (merciful not malicious) removal of his request for time to think.

BW: Ã¢â‚¬ËœCertainly this is by no means the first occasion on which the creation Ã¢â‚¬Å“scienceÃ¢â‚¬Â movement has sought to misrepresent the words of eminent scientists to bolster their own inept grasp of scientific matters, and to mislead their own unfortunate followers.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

GB: This accusation is beneath contempt now that your willingness to make accusations without doing your homework has surfaced. Another skeptic of creation, Glenn Morton, made similar charges on the internet. He asked Richard Dawkins about it and Dawkins denied recollection of the interview. Finally, after listening to an audio tape of the interview, Dr Morton posted the following apology:

Ã¢â‚¬ËœÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ I had originally questioned whether there was some doctoring going on in the tape because of certain technical details that were amiss. The shadows on the narrator were not the shadows from the room in which Dawkins sat. And the room appeared to be different. I wrote Dawkins and asked him about this. He denied having any recollection of this event. I suspected a video hatchet job. After Gillian established contact with me in June, I found that my suspicions were correct that the narrator was not in the same room as Dawkins. Gillian admitted that she had the narrator re-dub the question but contended that she had asked exactly that question and that Dawkins was shown exactly as he performed at the filming [a practice that Williams stated was acceptable Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ed.]. Gillian sent a copy of the original audio tape of the interview with Dawkins to a friend of mine. He sent the tape to me.

Ã¢â‚¬ËœI will state categorically that the audio tape of the interview 100% supports Gillian BrownÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s contention that Dawkins couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t answer the question.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢

Actually an extra chromosome (in this case-down syndrome) is an increase in information in a genome, just not a beneficial one.

A better example would be: RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

Nylon eating bacteria(a strain of Flavobacterium) are another great example of increasing information in a genome through mutation. Specificaly this mutation involved a frame shift mutation causing the formation of a new gene (new information). The bacteria was discovered in 1974 and nylon was invented in 1935. Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain.

Actually an extra chromosome (in this case-down syndrome) is an increase in information in a genome, just not a beneficial one.

A better example would be: RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)

All that is circular reasoning.First, They assumed evoltution is true, then they assume that homology in different genes is caused by gene duplication.Please give me a really scientific example of beneficial gene duplication. For example, polyploid is a real case of gene duplication, but it brings no selective advantage to the mutant and it causes no change above specie level.Show me any real case of gene duplication that gives any advantage above specie level ?

Nylon eating bacteria(a strain of Flavobacterium) are another great example of increasing information in a genome through mutation. Specificaly this mutation involved a frame shift mutation causing the formation of a new gene (new information). The bacteria was discovered in 1974 and nylon was invented in 1935. Scientists were able to induce another species of bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, to evolve the capability to break down the same nylon byproducts in a laboratory by forcing them to live in an environment with no other source of nutrients. The P. aeruginosa strain did not seem to use the same enzymes that had been utilized by the original Flavobacterium strain.

Research has shown that the correct explanation for the nylon-eating enzyme produced on the plasmids is somewhat different. It also confirms that the frameshift idea is totally wrong. Rather, there seems to be a special mechanism that recombines parts of the genes in the plasmids in a way that is non-random. This is shown by the absence of stop codons, which would be generated if the variation were random.